Why the World Exists

[Imaro]

Scenario:
PCs are in a dungeon. They have searched it through and didn't find yet what they were looking for. But they found a chamber that's apparantly a teleportation device. They can't find any clues (because there are none) where it leads to, and eventually, they decide to risk it. The first character enters, and one after another, each of them decides to risk it.
I've seen this scenario in actual play and encounters. The reason why the entire party eventually risks is is because we know that it'S a game and we're the protagonists. Whatever happens will propel the story, even if it's tough.

Or so we believe. In fact, this teleportation chamber teleports the PCs directly above a pool of lava. THey all die.

So then it wasn't an inescapable death trap, it was a choice to take a potentially dangerous action without knowing anything about it's consequences or effects... yeah they die if that's what I originally designed the device to do (though I have to ask...why does this thing teleport over a pool of lava, this just seems arbitrary.).

Honestly, unless you agree to change this fact beforehand...It's a game where one of the assumptions is that one can "loose" by dying,, thus that should always be considered a possible consequence of one's actions.

I would say this fails the qualification for "real death trap".
Who is raising them? And isn't the reason why you get the party raised not just because it makes "sense" from a purely verisimilitude perspective, but because the "show must go on"?
But even if you do it, wouldn't it feel a little... shallow to the players? "We only survived because the DM said we should, and we only died in the first place because the DM said we would. No amount of "smart play" would have saved us or created our way out." (Smart Play it might be if the PCs ensured they have an ally that would raise them, or that have a "raise dead insurance" or a contingency spell cast on them. But is that something possible in every game world at every level?)

Uhm, notice I said if they take the precautions to make sure they get raised again the impetus is on the PC's to make sure they get raised... not me as the DM. And if this isn't possible, perhaps the PC's shouldn't be diving into devices they know nothing about and have no clue where they lead... at least until they can do some actual research on it. You see it's not inescapable, they can easily walk away... and the funny thing is only a player who is used to things always being tailored to them would think like you have described. Thus why I said earlier that the different styles do foster a different mentality in players and DM's.

 

[monboesen]

Perhaps because this is what the actual discussion was originally about (a setting of level-appropriate challenges vs. a setting of level-independant challenges.

The point I'm trying to make is that I personally don't know or have participated in any roleplaying game that adheres to either of those categories. And my claim is that the vast majority of other roleplayers haven't either. Most actual games are a blend of the two, where characters usually meet appropiate challenges, unless they really mess up.

IMO you are discussing a completely theoretical and somewhat contrived scenario.

Anyway I don't see the rules of 4ed (or 3ed) state anywhere that you should design your game one way or another. The rules advice that most combats should be within certain limits, not that the entire world constantly reshapes itself according to character capabilty.

Incidently that advice is sound advice for the inexperienced DM's for whom the DM 1 4ed is clearly written.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Honestly, unless you agree to change this fact beforehand...It's a game where one of the assumptions is that one can "loose" by dying,, thus that should always be considered a possible consequence of one's actions.

Indeed, this lever trap has come up before, and my mind about it has not been changed -- such a trap is perfectly acceptable, so long as the means to create teleport traps exist within the game world.


RC

 

[Imaro]

The point I'm trying to make is that I personally don't know or have participated in any roleplaying game that adheres to either of those categories. And my claim is that the vast majority of other roleplayers haven't either. Most actual games are a blend of the two, where characters usually meet appropiate challenges, unless they really mess up..

Huh? Really huh? You don't think there are DM's who only create level-appropriate challenges (again not the same as same-level encounters) and then contrive to make sure the PC's only encounter them, or as Thasmodius has stated, he does, adjust them on the fly. I'm not saying anything is wrong with this style, but honestly to claim it doesn't exist is absurd.

Also please excuse me if I don't put much stock in unsupported claims of "what most players and/or DM's do". Give me some evidence (besides anecdotal) and maybe I'll take your claims a little more seriously.

IMO you are discussing a completely theoretical and somewhat contrived scenario..

Uhm ok, if that's what you believe... again that's great for you, but what exactly are you arguing then, since it's only "theoretical" for you.

Anyway I don't see the rules of 4ed (or 3ed) state anywhere that you should design your game one way or another. The rules advice that most combats should be within certain limits, not that the entire world constantly reshapes itself according to character capabilty..

Who said anything about what 3e or 4e state in their rulebooks? what does this have to do with editions, it's about playstyles, so why are you even bringing this up?

Incidently that advice is sound advice for the inexperienced DM's for whom the DM 1 4ed is clearly written.

Ok, I agree... but what does the 4th ed. DMG have to do with this discussion? Whatr exactly are you arguing here?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Indeed, this lever trap has come up before, and my mind about it has not been changed -- such a trap is perfectly acceptable, so long as the means to create teleport traps exist within the game world.


RC

So, where does "smart play" enter with such a threat?

 

[monboesen]

Huh? Really huh? You don't think there are DM's who only create level-appropriate challenges

Yes I do. I just think the numbers of people doing entirely tailored games AND the number of people doing only non-tailored games are both small enough to make the discussion pointless.

Also please excuse me if I don't put much stock in unsupported claims of "what most players and/or DM's do". Give me some evidence (besides anecdotal) and maybe I'll take your claims a little more seriously.

And can you provide me the numbers for the number of DM's doing it either entirely the tailored or non-tailored way?

The best I can do numbersvise is direct you to this split off thread that at least for time being have a majority of DM's stating they do a mix of the two styles. Remarkbly close to my experiences as player and DM.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...res-v-situations-forked-why-world-exists.html

Who said anything about what 3e or 4e state in their rulebooks? what does this have to do with editions, it's about playstyles, so why are you even bringing this up?

Ok, I agree... but what does the 4th ed. DMG have to do with this discussion? Whatr exactly are you arguing here?

This entire thread spawned partly from a discussion about the nature of campaigns with player magic item wish lists and a world of player entitlement that put the blame more or less on newer editions of the game. That is why I found it relevant. Thread is found here.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/251812-how-do-you-distribute-treasure.html

 

[Imaro]

Yes I do. I just think the numbers of people doing entirely tailored games AND the number of people doing only non-tailored games are both small enough to make the discussion pointless.

If you feel it's pointless, by all means don't participate... However others apparently feel different and thus are choosing to discuss it.

And can you provide me the numbers for the number of DM's doing it either entirely the tailored or non-tailored way?

I don't have to provide any numbers since I'm not making any claims about the majority of players and their styles, I'm discussing a particular style I have used... that is all.

The best I can do numbersvise is direct you to this split off thread that at least for time being have a majority of DM's stating they do a mix of the two styles. Remarkbly close to my experiences as player and DM.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/252118-adventures-v-situations-forked-why-world-exists.html

A thread (not even a poll) is your evidence which as of this posting has about 3 to 4 people total claiming your "majority" style is what they do. Besides EnWorld is not representative of gamers as a whole... so again all you have for your claims is anecdotal evidence. Perhaps it would be better if you just didn't make unfounded claims and instead just discussed your playstyle.

This entire thread spawned partly from a discussion about the nature of campaigns with player magic item wish lists and a world of player entitlement that put the blame more or less on newer editions of the game. That is why I found it relevant. Thread is found here.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/251812-how-do-you-distribute-treasure.html

And yet this discussion, about playstyles, is beyond that, as no one here (with the exception of you) has brought up editions having anything to do with it. It would seem that makes you the odd man out as far as whether edition has anything to do with it or not. I mean are you looking for a reason to make it about editions?

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, where does "smart play" enter with such a threat?

As an obvious example, casting augury?

The game has always allowed, since at least 1e, for players to have the means to know if some individual choice was good or bad. Smart play includes having these resources, saving them when they are not needed, and using them when they are.


RC

 

[The Ghost]

IMO you are discussing a completely theoretical and somewhat contrived scenario.

Yes I do. I just think the numbers of people doing entirely tailored games AND the number of people doing only non-tailored games are both small enough to make the discussion pointless.

As I said in the other thread, I do not feel that the point of these discussions is to place people into two distinct camps. Rather, I find this to be an interesting debate over methodology. The fact that various methods can, and do produce similar results does not change the fact those methods are quite different. I feel that too many people are looking at this discussion and saying "Your game produced result A, and my game produced result A, therefore, your game and my game are the same." To that I say, what happens when my game produces result B and your game produces result C? Are they still the same? Can your game even produce result B? Can my game even produce result C?

 

[Remathilis]

As an obvious example, casting augury?

The game has always allowed, since at least 1e, for players to have the means to know if some individual choice was good or bad. Smart play includes having these resources, saving them when they are not needed, and using them when they are.

RC

Do they cast divinations at every door, level, and staircase? It seems like it'd be dreadfully slow going through a dungeon. Heck, our level-approp dungeons seem slow going due to PC prudence, and they know there are no CR 20 dragons behind those doors...